header-logo header-logo

An Uber assessment

10 March 2021 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7924 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
42002
Uber drivers may now be entitled to the protection of the working time & national minimum wage legislation, but not all gig economy workers will be able to establish claims for worker status, says Charles Pigott
  • The Supreme Court has affirmed the employment tribunal’s decision that a group of Uber drivers had the status of non-employee workers.
  • In doing so it has signalled a new approach to assessing employment status.

A small group of London-based Uber drivers started proceedings in the employment tribunal in 2015. Two of them, Mr Aslam and Mr Farrer, were selected as test claimants for a preliminary ruling. This was to establish whether they had worker status for the purposes of claims for the national minimum wage and for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833.

The two main respondents were Uber BV, a Dutch company which owns the rights to the Uber app, and Uber London Limited, its UK subsidiary, which holds the licence to operate private hire vehicles in London. The name

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll